Cain v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections
| Decision Date | 21 May 1996 |
| Docket Number | Docket Nos. 101628,No. 8,101736,8 |
| Citation | 451 Mich. 470,548 N.W.2d 210 |
| Parties | John Chappel CAIN, Raymond C. Walen, Jr., Elton Floyd Mizell, Paul Allen Dye, John Chandler Ewing, Delbert M. Faulkner, C. Pepper Moore, Ramon Cobos, and Ronald Simpson-Bey, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Mary Glover, Serena Gordon, and Susan Fair, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Intervening Plaintiffs, v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant-Appellee. John Chappel CAIN, Raymond C. Walen, Jr., Elton Floyd Mizell, Paul Allen Dye, John Chandler Ewing, Delbert M. Faulkner, C. Pepper Moore, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, Mary Glover, Serena Gordon, and Susan Fair, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Intervenors, Appellants, v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant-Appellee. Calendar |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
In this factually intricate case, we are asked, in an interlocutory appeal, to decide whether the judgment of the Court of Appeals, calling for the disqualification of a circuit court judge, is proper. Ingham Circuit Judge James R. Giddings 1 denied the Department of Corrections' motion to disqualify himself. Chief Circuit Judge Peter D. Houk also denied the disqualification motion. The department appealed in the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals panel (Griffin, P.J., and D.E. Holbrook, Jr., and Weaver, JJ.), ordered that Judge Giddings be disqualified and therefore reversed the findings of Chief Judge Houk and remanded the case for the appointment of a different judge. This Court granted appellants' (plaintiffs' and plaintiffs-intervenors') interlocutory applications for leave to appeal. We now reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The issue presented to this Court regarding the disqualification of Judge Giddings is an outgrowth of a prisoners' rights class action originally filed in 1988. 2 The pertinent procedural history of this litigation will now be set forth. 3
In 1985, the Department of Corrections issued a policy directive to address the subject of prisoner personal property control. It is important to note that for purposes of personal property, this 1985 policy directive did not differentiate between security classifications of the prisoners. In 1988, as a result of the massive prison construction program responding to the large increases in prisoner population that began in 1984-85, the department attempted to revise its 1985 policy directive. It decided that changes needed to be made in its policy regarding the type and quantity of personal property that prisoners would be allowed to possess. 4 This 1988 revised policy directive specifically associated the type and amount of personal property afforded to a prisoner with the security classification of the prisoner. 5
Approximately two months later, on April 26, 1988, six male prisoners filed a complaint and a request in the Court of Claims for an ex parte temporary restraining order. 6 These individuals challenged the department's authority to reduce or change possession of personal property by prisoners. The primary cause of action asserted by the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs-intervenors is that the security classification system created by the department is arbitrary and capricious and violates the Michigan and United States Constitutions because the policy directive involves the taking of personal property by the department that is dependent on the security classification system.
On April 27, 1988, Judge Giddings entered a temporary restraining order that precluded the department from implementing its 1988 revised policy. On September 26, 1988, Judge Giddings granted the female prisoners' motion to intervene. Subsequently, the respective classes of male and female prisoners were certified.
On August 21, 1989, the Legislature entered this arena by giving effect to M.C.L.A. § 800.42; M.S.A. § 28.1411. 7 Although Judge Giddings' order enjoined the department's 1988 revision of its personal property policy directive, this statute served to impose similar limitations on the type and quantity of personal property that could be possessed by prisoners at differing levels of security. This caused the male prisoners to file a motion to enjoin the enforcement of this statute that was granted by Judge Giddings after a hearing on the matter on September 18, 1989. 8 This preliminary injunction was reduced to writing and entered on November 14, 1989. 9 The injunction currently remains in effect.
The road leading up to the department's motion to disqualify Judge Giddings has been long, winding, and bumpy. The focus of the department's motion centers on the relationship (or lack thereof) between Judge Giddings and Governor Engler. In the interest of time and space, this opinion will only recount the essential facts culminating in the department's decision to seek the disqualification of Judge Giddings.
The preliminary injunction issued by Judge Giddings generated numerous disputes over control of prisoner personal property. Many prisoners brought contempt proceedings against the department, alleging that it was violating the November 1989 injunction. 10 10 As a result, prisoners were often required to appear in court as witnesses to the alleged violation. A question arose concerning whether these individuals were entitled to receive the statutory witness fee pursuant to M.C.L.A. § 600.2552; M.S.A. § 27A.2552. On October 7, 1993, at a hearing on the issue, Judge Giddings decided that the prisoners were entitled to receive their statutory witness fee of $12 a day. 11
Thursday, October 14, 1993, while attending a dedication ceremony for the Saginaw Regional Correctional Facility, Governor John Engler made a comment regarding Judge Giddings that evidenced the Governor's distaste for the witness fee ruling. 12 At the time, Judge Giddings stated that he would not respond to the Governor's comments. However, "[p]ursuant to [his] ethical obligation imposed ... by Subsection 3B(3) 13 of the Code of Judicial Conduct," Judge Giddings sent a letter to the Attorney Grievance Commission regarding the Governor's statements on October 21, 1993. In his letter, Judge Giddings stated that the Governor's statements appeared to violate Rules 3.5, 14 8.2, 15 and 8.4(c), 16 of the Michigan Rules of Professional Responsibility. 17 On February 7, 1994, the Attorney Grievance Commission informed Governor Engler that Judge Giddings' request for investigation was dismissed. However, the commission "cautioned" the Governor regarding the ramification of such comments on the integrity of Michigan's legal system. 18
Additionally, during this time, the news media were taking great interest in the Governor's press releases and comments in this case. The record indicates that Judge Giddings was progressively becoming concerned over the statements reported by the press. Particularly, Judge Giddings focused on the substance of the Governor's press releases. On November 2, 1993, Judge Giddings held a hearing to address miscellaneous matters. At this time, Judge Giddings discussed what he termed to be "inaccuracies" in statements made to the press. 19 Further, Judge Giddings whether it would be appropriate for him to respond to what he felt were incorrect statements made by a litigant. 20 next significant event took place on June 2, 1994, when Judge Giddings, sua sponte, entered an order responding to what he viewed as the media problems surrounding the case. The media contacts order reads, in pertinent part:
This matter having come before the Court as a result of media contacts with the Court and the Court being made aware of certain inaccurate reports disseminated to the public media by representatives of the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) and other state agents, and the Court perceiving the need to impose reasonable steps to foster an environment to allow the case to be fairly litigated, and the Court being fully advised in the premises, it is hereby sua sponte ordered that:
(1) Any written remarks or press releases made or given to a member of the press by any employee or agent of the State, regarding this Cain litigation, must also be faxed to Plaintiffs' spokesperson Linda Forster, Plaintiff class-member Mark Coleman and Plaintiffs' counsel Charlene Snow at the same time that the remarks are provided to the public media. Similarly, any remarks or press releases given by the Plaintiffs to the public media must be faxed to Defendant's Counsel, A. Peter Govorchin, Assistant Attorney General, and the Michigan Department of Corrections' press spokesperson, Warren Williams.
Subsequently, the department moved that this order be stayed pending appeal on the merits because the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Leonard, Docket Nos. 178121
...... 569 N.W.2d 663 . 224 Mich.App. 569 . PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, . v. . Orlandus Carl LEONARD, Defendant-Appellant. . ... Cain... Cain v. Dep't of Corrections......
-
Barber v. Overton
......v. . William OVERTON, Director of the Michigan Department of Corrections, in his official capacity; Fritz Jackson; ... Cain v. Mich. Dept. of Corr., 451 Mich. 470, 548 N.W.2d 210, 212 n. 4 (1996); ......
-
Adair v. State, Dept. of Educ.
...... 474 Mich. 1027 . Daniel ADAIR, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, . v. . STATE of Michigan, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Department of Management and Budget, and Treasurer of the State of ... a judge "is disqualified when he cannot hear a case impartially pursuant to MCR 2.003(B)." Cain v. Dep't of Corrections, 451 Mich. 470, 494, 548 N.W.2d 210 (1996) (emphasis in original). "The ......
-
Sinicropi v. Mazurek
....... Docket No. 268000. . Court of Appeals of Michigan. . Submitted November 8, 2006, at Lansing. . Decided December 7, 2006, ...MCR 2.003(B)(1); Cain...MCR 2.003(B)(1); Cain v. Dep't of Corrections......
-
Participatory Litigation: A New Framework for Impact Lawyering.
...Id. (113.) Id. (114.) See 342 F. Supp. 800,801-02 (D. Conn. 1972), vacated, 410 U.S. 951 (1973). (115.) Cain v. Mich. Dep't of Corn, 548 N.W.2d 210, 232 (Mich. 1996) (instructing the lower court to consider the appointment of a special counsel to represent the class of male prisoner-plainti......